Defendants running haulage business from property accessed by lane – Lane owned by plaintiff – Plaintiff claiming excessive user – Nature and extent of defendants’ right to use lane – Judge finding use limited to agricultural use – Appeal dismissed
The first and second defendants were the owners of land known as Sydenham Meadows, near Broadwell, Gloucestershire. They bought the land in two parcels, the western part in 1983 and the eastern part in 1987. From about 1977, they and their son (the third defendant) carried on a haulage business from the land. The only access to it was by a lane known as Sydenham Lane. In 1994 the plaintiff acquired the lane which ran past her home, Sydenham Farm, which she had owned since 1979. On 18 December 1996 she issued proceedings claiming trespass, nuisance, harassment and excessive user of the right of way. She sought damages, an injunction and declarations. The county court granted the plaintiff a declaration that there was an easement to Sydenham Meadows for use of Sydenham Lane, with or without vehicles for all purposes in connection with the use and enjoyment of the land as agricultural land. The defendants appealed arguing that the lane was a public highway, or alternatively, that they had a private right to use it in a reasonable manner for the purpose of their haulage business, and they sought rectification of the land registry entry accordingly.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The judge’s task had been to determine whether, on the basis of all the evidence before him, the defendants had proved that the lane had, at some time in the past, been dedicated by its then owner, to use by the public as of right. It also had to be shown that the public had the right to use the lane, not only on foot or with animals, but also with wheeled vehicles. Although the judge could have revealed his reasoning in more detail, working out of material before him lead to exactly the same conclusion, that the defendants had not succeeded in proving that the land was a public highway.
2. Nothing had happened before 1977 that gave any hint to the plaintiff that a use of Sydenham Meadows was being established, which would alter it from the agricultural land that it had always been, to the depot for a substantial haulage business. The judge had been entirely justified in holding that the haulage business, although it involved the product of agriculture, was an entirely different business, and that the defendants had not acquired a right of access for the purposes of that business.
Benedict Sefi (instructed by Bishop & Sewell) appeared for the plaintiff; Peter Birts (instructed by Scaiff & Co, of Worcester) appeared for the defendants.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
